Public Discussion Circle

Comments (23)

	(Unregistered) said: Thursday 12, November 2009, 2:21 am
		I do not sagree with this theory rewards should be givin on the basis of merit, but only when it comes to positions of Authority, because people of authority tend to abuse power and or take powers that are not entitled to them without knowledge of the consequences, or the care for the consequences. A perfect example is the health care bill the congress voted on this weekend. Them officials were elected on merit, and their votes based on un-itended consequences, and selfish desires, regardless of the moral hazzards or consequesces they attempting to instill on the people reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

		(Unregistered) said: Sunday 15, November 2009, 1:16 pm
			Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's why we have the type of government we have. To prevent too much power in the hands of the few for too long. It is also why we have the second amendment, to protect the rights of the people from those in power. As far as healthcare goes. we get the government we deserve, and this forum is supposed to be about the lecture we just listened to not about spamming your opinions about current events, so how about sticking to the subject at hand.

	(Unregistered) said: Thursday 12, November 2009, 3:39 am
		Who determines people's "merit"? In an "ideal" world, positions would go to whoever was (agreed to be) most "suited" and could do the "best" job. Equality is a myth - and insisting upon making things more "fair" through "affirmative action" and/or "reverse discrimination" policies is NOT the best way for either individuals or society to reach their full potential. reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

	(Unregistered) said: Thursday 12, November 2009, 7:20 am
		I find it entertaining when someone with huge advantage talks about equality being a myth. This chimera only exists in the lap of luxury and in the minds of those who would lose something if there were any leveling.Take seriously the veil of ignorance argument and consider that you might be on the bottom next time around, if any. reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

		(Unregistered) said: Friday 13, November 2009, 8:29 pm
			The veil of ignorance is hypothetical so there is no way to know what people would decide. Maybe if I were behind the veil, I would say let the smart people do whatever they want and let the dumb people suffer. I would argue that the dumb people would be too dumb to care. Since you are considering this argument, you are probably too smart to not care, but that is just the way things are. I take the argument seriously, but I still think it is wrong.

		(Unregistered) said: Sunday 15, November 2009, 1:32 pm
			"I would say let the smart people do whatever they want and let the dumb people suffer." So you are saying that if you step out from behind the veil and find out that you are one of the dumb ones that you are ok with it because you are too stupid to know any better. I think you are assuming that you won't be one of the dumb ones and that is the flaw in your comment. you would be one of the loudest protesters no doubt.

	(Unregistered) said: Thursday 12, November 2009, 9:31 am
		I agree with the goal of diversity as being valuable (especially in a collegiate setting), however, the current mechanisms of affirmative action do not fairly address the root problem. Historically, the American institution of slavery directly benefited only a small socio-economic minority (namely, rich white males). If as one argument goes, the point of affirmative action is at its root an attempt to redress the continued socio-economic disparities encountered in primarily minority communities, doesn't it the make more sense to base any affirmative action initiative directly on the socio-economic traits of the candidate rather than on explicitly racial or ethnic ones? After all, it is not correct to say that ALL African-Americans attend bad schools or grow up in poverty, any more than to say ALL whites are rich or attend better schools (at least currently). While in general I do not think the "No Child Left Behind" law is good legislation, it has enabled us to identify specific schools which are consistently "failing". If we base affirmative action on the quality of the schools attended in combination with parental mean-income levels, I believe we will ultimately benefit those potential students who are most deserving of the affirmative action "leg up," and as long as it remains true that most students attending bad schools in poor districts are minorities, it will continue to address all the racial-ethnic diversity issues at play. Additionally, I worry that affirmative action in its current form only exacerbates the current inequalities among different racial groups. In example: In the case he cites early in this class, the applicant in question is in effect being held to a higher admission standard than her peers in the minority communities. The end result is that white candidates only compete against white candidates, and everyone else against only other minority candidates. I am not sure that segregating candidates by race in an admissions process can ultimately lead to desegregation in the greater society. As we already know, certain workplace attitudes tend to discriminate against minorities, using as an excuse, whether true or not, that "they're not as good as me, because they benefited from affirmative action." Using a truly color-blind standard such as individual economic circumstances and previous educational quality as the basis for affirmative action would remove this racist excuse. As to Aristotle, the argument is true only for closed, static systems. If all flute players were always at the same skill level, it would be just, but it denies (and in practice inhibits) the potential for change. reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

		(Unregistered) said: Sunday 15, November 2009, 1:37 pm
			As to Aristotle, the argument is true only for closed, static systems. If all flute players were always at the same skill level, it would be just, but it denies (and in practice inhibits) the potential for change. If all flute players were the same, there would be no need for superior flutes, nor craftsmen who could make them.

	(Unregistered) said: Thursday 12, November 2009, 11:10 am
		Never biased on the basis of authority. That is precisely the wrong way to go. If it is to be properly based on merit then that is the scale to be used regardless of any other authority. reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

	(Unregistered) said: Thursday 12, November 2009, 3:22 pm
		The concept of equality as a reality is naive and wrong. The concept of equality as a value or as a goal is futile, naive and wrong. To continue to manipulate social/political factors to acheive it is futile and wrong. We need an entirely new concept to strive for. ...is a new concept to much to ask of our furry little heads? reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

		(Unregistered) said: Friday 13, November 2009, 12:29 pm
			So the reality of gross disparity is "right", then? On what basis? Because it already exists? Remember, here, the idea of equality was first presented as "Equality of Opportunity", meaning with regard to (more) equal educational preparation. Would this also be wrong? Why not strive more more equality in educational opportunity, and even if equality is too "futile" to be achieved, at least things would be less unequal than they are now... wouldn't this be an improvement? What would some general characteristics of the "new concept" be that you suggest?

	(TylerKubik) said: Thursday 12, November 2009, 6:11 pm
		Firstly, when looking at Affirmative Action, you look at the original purpose of it, which was to correct for discrimination against African-Americans. This was somewhat understandable when it was passed, however this argument doesn't hold true today. The factors that lead to disparities in different areas of society between African-Americans and other groups, namely whites, cannot be attributed to racism or discrimination; rather they are legitimate differences in relevant factors. When you consider that whites are more likely to get a loan that blacks, it is not racism that causes this difference, it is that whites have higher incomes than blacks on average, and this is part of what loans are based off of. If you have a high enough income that they expect you can pay the loan back, you will get the loan. So, you cannot attribute differences like this to racism, but rather legitimate differences in economic background that lead to differences. And if you wanted to still say that discrimination leads to these differences, than wouldn't Asians also be discriminated against to get loans? But the reality is that Asians are more likely to get a loan that even whites, and again is because of the relevant differences in household income. So, this then brings us to the idea that the correction is not going to be based on race only, because as we just saw race is not the factor itself that leads to these disparities, but we base it on the fact that blacks are more likely to come from lower income households, which means they are more disadvantaged and did not have as many opportunities to succeed. However, this argument does not hold up either. If you make the case that African-Americans perform so poorly academically because they are from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds, then it should be the case that all people in the same economic and disadvantaged backgrounds would perform as poorly as African-Americans. Yet Asians outperform blacks significantly in lower income brackets. So, if Asians in lower income brackets can perform that well, why can't African-Americans perform as well in lower income brackets? They have the same opportunities (more than likely they actually have more opportunities, with the countless number of programs out there to help African-Americans that are disadvantaged) and come from the same economic background, yet perform more poorly than Asian-Americans. And you cannot argue there is a cultural bias here that favors Asian-Americans over African-Americans, because then you would have to say there is a cultural bias favoring Asian-Americans over whites, because they also perform better than whites, and that would just be a ridiculous claim. And, as this argument holds true in lower income brackets, it holds true in high income brackets. If economic background and opportunities are the cause of poor academic performance by African-Americans, we would expect that in higher income brackets they would be able to perform as well as whites and Asian-Americans, and the performance would even out among different races and ethnicities. Yet, African-Americans still perform more poorly than Asian-Americans in higher income brackets, when they have the same strong economic background and same opportunities as Asian-Americans. So, it is clear that you cannot attribute it to economic background either, since across the board African-Americans perform more poorly than other ethnicities. My response has been long enough as it is, so I won't go on, but ultimately my conclusion is that you cannot expect inclusion of people into whatever area, whether it be loans or academics, based on things other than merit in relevant areas to be good for society, or the people themselves. It sets them up for failure. reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

	(DanielAyer) said: Thursday 12, November 2009, 8:07 pm
		If the ultimate goal is to have a race neutral society, then affirmative action cannot be the proper tool. What is missed in these discussions is that "race" is a fiction. Consider that the Irish were once considered as a distinct race. Today they would be judged as "white." "African American" is considered a race, though in Africa there are many races. Should an American descended from a Bantu and one descended from a Khoisan, two separate races from Southern Africa, be now considered the same race simply because they find themselves in the U.S.? When scrutinized these are simply arbitrary distinctions. The root problem is inequality in opportunity, not inequality of "race." Affirmative actions is saying to one group, "You have done wrong," while saying to another, "You have been wronged." At the same time it is saying to the victims, "You have been hamstrung. You cannot compete." These are not positive messages. They paint the areas in which the victims grew up as undesirable. In so doing, and this trend holds so far, those who are helped up are also helped out. Most who leave poverty are not likely to return to the places where they experienced it, and therefore are not likely to bring their gains back to their communities. We MUST put our efforts into infrastructural changes in lieu of affirmative action if we ever wish to see the end of these divides. My ethnic background is, simply put, that I am a human being. So is yours. My family's history extends back some 14 Billion years. So does yours. There are differences of history, of opportunity, of aggressors and victims to be sure. However, these differences stem from the forgetting that we are more the same than we are different. reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

		(Unregistered) said: Sunday 15, November 2009, 11:33 am
			this is a good argument, and i agree with it. the message of permitting anyone to be accepted on 'lower standards' is to say to them that they are not 'good enough' to compete, and in effect they are 'never to know' whether they are in fact as good as - in this case - 'whites' better that they get in purely on 'merit' so no one can doubt them based on color. this 'honesty' is valuable for real self esteem m

		(Unregistered) said: Wednesday 18, November 2009, 11:53 pm
			Too long to respond to.

	(Unregistered) said: Friday 13, November 2009, 4:09 am
		The glaring problem in the Hopwood vs. Texas law school case is that she was also a minority- a poorer women. How about not admitting a wealthy child, someone who could afford to go to another private Law institution and not suffer economic hardship. reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

	(Unregistered) said: Sunday 15, November 2009, 9:05 pm
		With today's technology schools have no reason to limit the number of students at all. Using automation and technology schools can accept anyone who is willing to learn and participate to make a difference in our society. People do not have to attend physicall classrooms any longer, we can all attend internet enabled virtual classrooms and virtual computer assissted learning. Affirmitive action was a solutoin for yesteryear and no longer applicable, today. reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

	(Unregistered) said: Sunday 15, November 2009, 9:24 pm
		"If we were handing out flutes, who should get the best ones? One member of the audience answered that the best flutes should go to the best flute players, which is exactly what Aristotle said. But why? Because the best flute players will use the flutes to produce the best music". However, is it not true that a flute played by people from different backgrounds will produce and different results and those sounds are only appealing to the flut players cultuer of origin. So, if I'm from a specific culture, I would like my flute player to be from my culture and that would make him/her a better flute player in my cultural world! Would it not? Does a flute player from india play the same sounds that a flute player from N.Y. Symphony Orchestra would play? reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

	(Unregistered) said: Monday 16, November 2009, 12:20 pm
		The more I think about John Rawl's use of a hypothetical "original position/veil of ignorance" to determine what is fair, the more I appreciate its value. Consider that in the classroom debate, most if not all of those speaking in favor of affirmative action seemed to be members of racial minorities, and those opposed all seemed to be white! How inclined are all of us to promote policies based primarily on whether they are/were in our own interests, or those of our own kind. We have to try to ignore our own biased interests in a proper determination of what is just. I believe that the rational conclusion of people in an original position, without knowledge of their own social characteristics or status, would definitely be in favor of affirmative action. Why? Because if jobs and income are related to whether or not one has a college degree, including what college your degree is from, people would be concerned as to what their income would be. It is more important to a rational person to try to increase the odds that you would have enough income to meet your primary needs, than to gamble on possibly making more money to satisfy your less important needs and desires. Happiness can be had without great wealth, but it can be more elusive when accompanied by frequent hunger, cold, illness, or homelessness. Wouldn't you agree? reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

		(Unregistered) said: Wednesday 18, November 2009, 11:55 pm
			Good point.

	(Unregistered) said: Monday 16, November 2009, 2:38 pm
		Nov 12 3:22 and reply Nov 13 12:29 Dear 12:29, thanks for using the ? rather than a hammer. Gross disparity is wrong by definition. Large disparities in humans are probably good and occur by natural and learned processes; genes, parenting, family, society, environment, etc,etc. In our evolving world, large disparities are accelerated to gross disparities by groups and or individuals by values, culture, and opportunity. For example, greed and lust are powerful forces that in the wrong groups and individuals (wrongly cultivated) wreak havoc on humankind. Valiantly but naively trying to manipulate results by equality concepts seem to energize the bad to new levels of greed and control; successfully. A generalized new concept would be something akin to redirecting the natural large disparities (people and groups) toward a powerful system of caring, compassion, sharing, love, for themselves and the rest of us. But how? reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

		(Unregistered) said: Wednesday 18, November 2009, 10:18 am
			You say "In our evolving world, large disparities are accelerated to gross disparities by groups and or individuals by values, culture, and opportunity". As you look down on gross disparities, would it not then seem a good idea to attempt to provide equality of opportunity? This is not manipulating results as much as the starting line. The end results we are concerned with are our careers and our income; education is only the means to these ends. I do not agree that such efforts "energize the bad to new levels of greed and control". This would more likely be for other reasons, and happen regardless of EO programs. The creation of methods for developing compassionate attitudes is a good one. Religion is theoretically and often a good vehicle for this. Keeping the spotlight on the plight of the disadvantaged is also good. Discouraging the excessive accumulation of wealth would also be good, as long as this excess is necessarily the cause of the insufficient income for others.

	(Unregistered) said: Wednesday 18, November 2009, 4:54 pm
		Equal in opportunity does not mean equal in results. Providing higher education to more minorities does not necessarily equate to more minorities achieving a greater role in society. Society is the very mechanism that created the disadvantage. So I would disagree affirmative action supports the University of Texas mission statement. Each individual is unique and despite their evolutionary origin deserves to be evaluated fairly on the merits measurable to the objective they seek. reply please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image Post Reply

Add Your Thoughts